Talk:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan/Archives/ 1

Page rename

Perhaps this page should be renamed to something more neutral, perhaps the category title Category:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan. If this page is called "chinilpa", it should almost exclusively info about the history and usage of that word. It also feels like we're passing judgement. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

---

Chinilpa → Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan – See my talk post above this; this article is currently titled using a term considered derogitory, and isn't exclusively a discussion about the word itself per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It actually significantly talks about the people alleged to be collaborators. That'd be like talking about a people group under an article titled with a slur for them; that's clearly not neutral, it feels like it's validating the slur. Note: I'm not expressing sympathy for nor opposition to collaborators here, I am purely trying to apply WP:NDESC.

My proposed new title matches Category:Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan; I just chose to use it for consistency and because it's an adequate title, open to suggestions for other titles.

Side note, but the term itself is possibly independently notable and could eventually get its own article, but current article lengths suggest to me that it should all be in one. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment Do you know what reliable sources usually call them (chinilpa)? I know that the term chinilpa is pretty damning but if it is the common name then it should be used despite its connotations, per WP:POVNAME, Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name… generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. I also think that chinilpa has the advantage of being more WP:CONCISE, but if reliable sources depreciate the term then perhaps this should be moved. Dantus21 (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's a bit hard to prove common name in this case because "collaborators" is a fairly generic term, but I'd still argue it is more common based on the following evidence and on my personal experience with the literature.

Various pieces of evidence:

• Special Law to Redeem Pro-Japanese Collaborators' Property (all of the refs/ext links on this page too)
  • Relevant act
• Can search in these books, "collaborator" outnumbers "chinilpa": [1][2]
• Book title: [3]
• Various academic articles: [4][5][6][7][8]
• If you search "chinilpa" on google scholar you get around 100 results, but "korean collaborators with japan" (no exact match) seems to yield much more results that are relevant.

Another term I've seen around is "pro-Japanese Koreans", but this term isn't very common and it's not suitable for a title imo; too vague. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Based on the sources above, I'd say the main (or strongest) reason for moving this page could actually be on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME or even WP:USEENGLISH. The term "chinilpa" seems to still be used commonly when referring to pro-Japanese Koreans in reliable sources though , and as stated before is more WP:CONCISE. This ngrams also seems to put chinilpa at the top, but idk how reliable it is.

Some sources that used chinilpa when scanning google scholar— [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

By the way, have you seen the hanjian page? I don’t know what your knowledge of Chinese history is, but on the surface it seems like a similar situation to here concerning the page name and you might want to look into it. Dantus21 (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think this page and hanjian pages may have different balances for weighing COMMONNAME, NDESC, and NPOVNAME; not sure of hanjian's situation. My knowledge of Chinese collaborators is so-so, not much reading specifically on them before.

I'm confused by this sentence in WP:POVNAME: An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past; it must be the common name in current use. The italics are not mine. Do the italics imply the title should be the stand-out unambiguous common name, or just the top name?

If the italics are implying stand-out, I think this article's title is possibly a toss-up on what is more common based on the ngram you provided, meaning possibly we could weigh USENGLISH and NDESC higher. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Question

I think the name should be the standout title; I think this supports the case for "Korean collaborators with Imperial Japan". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I was always sure that the rule only meant the top name, but the user in that discussion seemed to say otherwise. Hopefully more people can come and discuss this move. Dantus21 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - I think this article, which predominantly talks about the history of pro-Japanese collaborators during the colonial period, would be suited better by the proposed rename. As a rough proposal, I think content from the lead section of this article which talks about the derogatory symbolism of the term "chinilpa", along with articles like Tochak Waegu, should be merged into a separate list of derogatory Korean slurs or the Anti Japanese sentiment article. - 00101984hjw (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Footballer wrongly linked as one of the Five Eulsa Traitors

The article lists one Lee Ji-yong as one of the Five Eulsa Traitors, except the person linked is a South Korean footballer born in 1999. The correct person is Yi Ji-yong, Interior Minister of Korea between 1910 and 1928. 120.159.88.90 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)